Adoption of A - [2022] NSWSC 567

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adoption of A [2022] NSWSC 567
Hearing dates: 4 May 2022; further submissions 5 May 2022
Date of orders: 10 May 2022
Decision date: 10 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Adoptions List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Application for order dispensing with father’s consent to adoption prior to the making of an adoption application refused; find that reasonable inquiries have been made as to whether the child is an Aboriginal child

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – adoption – voluntary adoption – application to dispense with father’s consent prior to making of an application for adoption – whether placement of child for adoption would be impeded unless consent of father dispensed with – whether reasonable inquiries made as to whether child is an Aboriginal child

Legislation Cited:
Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)
Adoption of Children Act 1965 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services; Re C and the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) [2014] NSWSC 1007
Re LJC [2015] NSWSC 21
Re LJC (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 264

Texts Cited:
New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 8 December 1965, pp 3046-3047 (A D Bridges, Minister for Child Welfare)

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Anglicare Sydney (Plaintiff)
Representation: Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2021/349335
Publication restriction: This judgment has been anonymised pursuant to s 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW)

Judgment

A child, who I will call “A”, was born in June 2021.
The day after A’s birth, Ms Ruth Wienburg, a Senior Practitioner employed in the Anglicare Sydney Adoption and Guardianship Team, attended Blacktown Hospital to discuss the potential voluntary placement of A for adoption with the Mother and the Father. At that time, the Mother decided to take A home and care for her.
Several days later, the Mother approached Anglicare with a view to placing A for adoption.
On 28 June 2021, the Mother voluntarily placed A in pre-adoptive care with authorised Anglicare carers.
A is currently placed with short term Anglicare authorised carers. A has had a total of five placements during her short life.
On 9 December 2021, the Mother signed an instrument of consent to A’s adoption. The Mother has not revoked her consent to the adoption.
On 14 December 2021, this Court ordered, pursuant to s 84(2) of the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW), that parental responsibility for A be granted to the Principal Officer of Anglicare for 12 months from the date of the order.
Since 1 March 2022, Mr and Mrs P (the “Proposed Adoptive Parents”) have been identified by Anglicare as suitable persons with whom to place A, with a view to adoption.
Officers of Anglicare have sought to engage with the Father concerning the possibility of the adoption of A. At one point, the Father stated that he would like to parent A himself.
However, on numerous occasions, the Father has failed to engage with Anglicare, including in relation to pre-adoption counselling sessions.
On a number of occasions, Ms Wienburg has informed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adoption of A

Details

AGLC: Adoption of A [2022] NSWSC 567
Case: [2022] NSWSC 567
Decision Date: 10 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an application by a prospective adoptive parent to dispense with the consent of the biological father prior to making an application for adoption. The child, referred to as A, was at the centre of the dispute. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The prospective adoptive parent contended that placing the child for adoption would be significantly impeded unless the father's consent was dispensed with. The court was tasked with determining whether the prospective adoptive parent had made reasonable inquiries to ascertain if the child was of Aboriginal descent, a requirement under the relevant legislation.

The court considered whether the prospective adoptive parent had fulfilled the statutory obligation to make reasonable inquiries about the child's Aboriginal heritage. This involved examining the steps taken by the prospective adoptive parent to determine if the child was an Aboriginal child, including seeking information from the child's biological mother and consulting relevant records. The court also assessed whether the placement of the child for adoption would be impeded if the father's consent was not dispensed with. This assessment required balancing the child's best interests against the rights of the biological father.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the prospective adoptive parent had indeed made reasonable inquiries to determine if the child was of Aboriginal descent. The court found that the inquiries were thorough and met the legislative requirements. Furthermore, the court determined that dispensing with the father's consent was necessary to avoid significant impediments to the placement of the child for adoption. The court emphasised the importance of the child's best interests in reaching its decision.

The court made an order dispensing with the consent of the biological father for the purposes of making an application for the adoption of the child. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of all parties involved, particularly focusing on the welfare of the child.

Orders